Posted on 05/30/2005 7:54:26 AM PDT by PatrickHenry
Can God and evolution coexist?
For many evangelical Christians, the debate over teaching evolution in public schools touches a vital spiritual nerve. Some see evolution as a path to perdition, while others see it as a crowning example of God's handiwork.
A legal battle in Dover, Pa., over the teaching of evolution and "intelligent design" has focused new attention on the issue, as have recent proposals in Kansas to change how evolution is taught there.
For David Wilcox, a biology professor at Eastern University, an evangelical college in St. Davids, the challenge is to teach students that it's possible to embrace evolution "without intellectual schizophrenia."
"Frequently, they've been taught that evolution is another way of saying atheism, and they just shut it out," said Wilcox, author of God and Evolution: A Faith-Based Understanding. "They say, 'Why do I have to learn this stuff - don't you know that God hates science?' "
"We have to make them wake up and smell the coffee. God doesn't hate science - he invented it. We try to get them to see that evolution happened and it's not so scary... that evolution is the way God did it."
"Evolutionary theists" such as Wilcox are part of a broader effort by the scientific establishment to defend evolution against advocates of creationism, "intelligent design," and other concepts that challenge all or parts of the theory of natural selection.
Evangelical Christians, sometimes portrayed as monolithic in their opposition to evolution, are as divided as much of the rest of the nation.
"No topic in the world of science and Christianity has created the intensity of discussion and disharmony with evangelicals as the source of biological diversity," says the American Scientific Affiliation, an organization of scientists who are Christians. "Today's spirited discussion often pits Christian vs. Christian and scientist vs. scientist."
The nation's leading science organizations and the vast majority of scientists accept the theory of evolution as the explanation for the origin of all living things, but Americans in general are much less convinced.
Offered three explanations for the origin of humans in a CBS News/New York Times poll six months ago, 13 percent of respondents said they believed "we evolved from less-advanced life-forms over millions of years, and God did not directly guide this process." Twenty-seven percent believed "we evolved from less-advanced life-forms over millions of years, but God guided this process." And 55 percent believed "God created us in our present form." The poll, which questioned 885 people, had a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.
Evangelicals who are "young Earth" fundamentalists dismiss evolution and subscribe to a literal interpretation of the Genesis account of creation, believing Earth is less than 10,000 years old. They often see the teaching of evolution as undermining Christianity and paving the way to immorality.
"What you believe about where you came from directly affects your worldview," said Ken Ham, president of Answers in Genesis, a fundamental creationist organization that is building a 50,000-square-foot Creation Museum in Petersburg, Ky. "If you can use man's ideas to reinterpret the book of Genesis, then why not use man's ideas to reinterpret morality?"
One of the newest wrinkles in a debate that has percolated ever since Charles Darwin published his On the Origin of Species in 1859 is "intelligent design." That is the concept at the heart of the battle in Dover, 25 miles south of Harrisburg.
Eleven parents have filed a federal lawsuit to stop the Dover school board from requiring biology teachers to present "intelligent design" as an alternative to evolution. The parents say intelligent design is a religious argument and teaching it violates a 1987 U.S. Supreme Court ruling against teaching creationism as science. [Edwards vs Aguillard . ]
Intelligent design holds that natural selection cannot explain all of the complex developments observed in nature and that an unspecified intelligent designer must be involved. Its adherents say it is a scientific, not a religious, concept based on scientific observations, although they acknowledge its theological implications.
Michael Behe, a biochemistry professor at Lehigh University in Bethlehem and the author of Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution, is an intelligent-design proponent and is scheduled to be one of the expert witnesses for the Dover school board when the case goes to trial in the fall.
He says religion is "clearly why [intelligent design] evokes such emotion... . People think it will support their religious views. It's not just another issue of science. If it were, no one would care."
Christian supporters of evolution say intelligent design, while rejecting "young Earth" beliefs, seems to require periodic intervention by the designer.
Kenneth R. Miller, a professor of biology at Brown University, is a Catholic and an ardent proponent of evolution and opponent of intelligent design. The author of Finding Darwin's God, he is to be an expert witness for the parents in the Dover case. [The Flagellum Unspun: The Collapse of "Irreducible Complexity," Kenneth R. Miller. Critique of Behe.]
"I think there is a God, and he is the creator of the universe," Miller said. "But the God of the intelligent-design movement is way too small... . In their view, he designed everything in the world and yet he repeatedly intervenes and violates the laws of his own creation.
"Their God is like a kid who is not a very good mechanic and has to keep lifting the hood and tinkering with the engine."
In New Jersey and Pennsylvania, as in most states, school districts are required to teach evolution as part of the science curriculum.
In Pennsylvania, "school districts may inform students of the existence of particular religious viewpoints when the information in conveyed for a secular and educational purpose and is presented objectively," according to Bethany Yenner, an Education Department spokeswoman. "Under no circumstance may an educator or a school district offer opinions on religious viewpoints."
In New Jersey, students "could look at how a variety of religions view a scientific theory," noted Jon Zlock, an Education Department spokesman. "Obviously, more than one religious viewpoint should be explored. It should be done objectively. One religious point of view should not be stressed above others."
Many evangelical Protestants, like many Catholics and other Christians, argue that faith and science complement each other and need not collide over evolution.
The scientific establishment is stepping up its efforts to present evolution as something apart from, not a threat to, religion.
"It's not science vs. religion - that misses the point entirely," said Jay Labov, senior adviser for education and communication for the National Academy of Sciences. "Science cannot begin to look into the supernatural. That's beyond the realm of science."
The president of the National Academy, Bruce Alberts, sent a letter in March to all members of the academy, urging them "to confront the increasing challenges to the teaching of evolution in public schools; your help may be needed in your state soon." [Letter from Bruce Alberts on March 4, 2005. ]
The academy has gathered the signatures of more than 4,000 Christian clergy, including evangelicals, supporting evolution as "a foundational scientific truth." The clergy, in the letter, "ask that science remain science and that religion remain religion, two very different, but complementary, forms of truth."
But more collisions between the two seem certain.
"If you think there are issues with school boards now, there are going to be a lot more," said Ham, of Answers in Genesis. "Wait till we get the museum finished - you haven't seen anything yet."
Wrong, it is the usual understanding. If you take all of the instances in the Hebrew Scriptures of the word YOM and compare them WITH THEIR QUALIFIERS then the only definition that you can REASONABLE come up with is a literal 24 hour day. To say otherwise is to step outside of the bounds or reason and try to force a meaning on a text that the text does not, will never, and was never meant to have. And why would one do that unless they were trying to let fallible "science" interpret the Bible rather than let the Word of God interpret science?
It is your choice, by the way, which you choose to accept. But for pitys sake, dont' try to say that the Genesis account literally means anything other than a 24 hour period of time. That would be eisegesis, not exegesis and would be very very poor biblical scholarship.
Then why did God go through all the trouble to make it look like evolution is what happened?
Do you believe in stoning people for an assortment of sins? Take a look at Leviticus.
I don't remember that one.
No, it is your interpretation. I realize that some literalists have a hard time recognizing that their reading of scripture is as much an interpretation as anyone else's. The question of the age of creation is not new, and the ancient Jewish sages debated whether Genesis 1 was literal or non-literal. Nachmanides wrote that time itself was created on the first day.
The history lesson aside (not needed, as I'm aware this has been a controversial subject), do you believe in the Resurrection of Jesus Christ or His virgin Birth?
I am a Jew, not a Christian.
Do you as a Jew take anything in the Hebrew Scripture literally?
Yes.
Me either. Some threads experience an afterlife.
How do you know that they are to be taken literally?
You're lucky.
Not including the current one, moderators vs me. LOL
I have my own opinions, which undoubtedly differ from the opinions of others. I recognize that my reading of scripture is, necessarily, an interpretation. I favor the rationalist exegesis of Maimonides, because that makes the most sense to me.
Then as a rationalist, you no doubt use hermeneutic principles such as historical usage in your determination? True or false?
Not in any formal sense, no.
Then you must look at the Bible willy-nilly. Historical context is a key for interpretation of any text. Even secular texts. It is part of the way we understand language. With the use of "day" we understand meaning by historical usage. "In my day we didn't have television," is not a statement to be considered as a literal 24 hour day, but rather a period of time. Whereas, "one day last week, I stayed awake from the beginning of the morning to the end of the night," is normally understood to be referred to as a twenty-four hour day. In Judaism, I also understand, a normal day, such as in Shabbat, is considered from one evening to the next. The normal understanding of a "day".
So, what I am saying is seeing the word "Yom" as a 24 hour day in Genesis's creation is the most NATURAL use of the term. It is what one would naturally come up with if he or she wasn't trying to read things into the surface of the text. You have plants created on one day and Sun on the next. Sure, it is possible God sustained the plant life for millions of years without photosynthesis, but is it feasible that He would do this. Not really.
Genesis 1-11 is to be taken literally in its most natural use. There is no reason not to take it literally as it is a historical account - (as opposed to poetry or something to that affect).
If nmh is Jewish, then Leviticus applies. Otherwise, for Gentiles (the rest of the world, including arabs, etc.) the New Testament applies. You would know this if you made any attempt at reading even part of Holy Scriptures. And don't misinterpret my words: I am not a Biblical expert by any stretch.
Following the advice in Leviticus, Deuteronomy, etc., however, does have blessings, i. e. benefits.
1Corinthians 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
It is not a conspiracy. The word 'conspiracy' is your opinion, your chosen word. The word is rebellion. Man's rebellion against God. Got started thousands of years ago by our grandparents Adam & Eve in a lush garden where the rivers Pison, Gihon, Hiddekel, and Euphrates meet.
Tradition says Moses wrote the first 5 books of the Old Testament. However, if Moses was raised as a prince of Egypt, he wouldn't have learned Hebrew, the slaves' language. These books would've originally been written in Egyptian and someone else would've translated them into Hebrew. Is there a tradition that addresses this?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.